Judgements Uploaded By Users In Category: Income-Tax Act
These judgements are uploaded by our esteemed readers. If you have a judgement on an important topic that you would like to share with others, please use this form to upload it
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 28(i) : Business income-Income from house property-Builder- Stock in trade-Leave and licence-Income from licencing of residential flats assessable as business income and not as income from house property. [S. 22, 23] Assessee, a builder, constructed building called Kanchenjunga and sold most of its flats. Some flats were unsold. In the interim disputes arose between… Read More ...
The ITAT Chennai has held that The consideration paid by the assessee to its shareholders for purchase of its own shares was liable to tax as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(d) of the Act, and alternatively, u/s.2(22)(a) of the Act, and consequently, the assessee company was liable for payment of Dividend Distribution Tax (in short “DDT") u/s.115-O of the Act. The consideration paid… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that In this case, the approval/sanction for order under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8. The entire controversy is, therefore, (a) whether the Principal Commissioner was the specified authority, who could have granted the approval / sanction ?, (b) if not, the effect thereof? The impugned notice… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Procedure for filing objections-Natural justice-Form No 35A signed by the Advocate-Authorised Representative is not entitle to verify and sig the Form No 35A-Dismissal of objection by DRP without giving an opportunity to rectify the defects is violation of principle of natural justice - The Tribunal directed the Assessee… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that (i) The Order of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Cawnpore Club Ltd., Kanpur (2004) 140 Taxman 378 (SC) cannot be treated as a precedent within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India as the said order does not declare any law and the appeals filed by the… Read More ...
The ITAT MUMBAI has held that However, we find that the assessing officer has incorrectly added the whole amount of deposit found in the impugned bank account which was not pertained to the assessment year under consideration. Further as per the submission of the assessee there are some amount deposited in the bank account on account of dividend, bank interest and… Read More ...
The M P HIGH COURT JABALPUR BENCH has held that The grounds raised by learned counsel for petitioner in support of challenge to the impugned order and notice are as follows: (a) The income referred to in impugned order and notice Annexure P-3 and P-4 is not income chargeable to tax but is the gross proceeds/consideration received by petitioner for sale of 16 scooters during… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that S. 69A : Unexplained money-Advocate-Seizure of cash-Cash withdrawal from Bank-Professional fees received cash-Name of the client from whom cash received was disclosed-The cash amount was disclosed in the books of account-Revenue cannot ask the asseessee to prove the source of the source-Addition was deleted. [S. 44AB , 131(IA)] The assessee is a practicing advocate who… Read More ...
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that Section 68 : Cash credit – Jeweller-Demonetisation – allegation of inflated cash sales and huge cash deposit not commensurate with earlier year and subsequent year and customers did not substantiate their source of funds – held that such allegation cannot be the ground to make addition u/s 68 if sales are linked with the deposits… Read More ...
The ITAT, Dehradun Bench has held that Facts of the case Assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 belatedly under section 139(4) of Income-tax Act, 1961 on 06.10.2015. This return was not selected for scrutiny by Assessing Officer. However, Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 on 22.01.2015 itself which is prior to the date of filing of… Read More ...